Oliver Stone makes films I love or hate. 'JFK' is one of my favorite films: it shines in spite of the presence of 'Cavein Causesnore' in a starring role. 'Nixon' was great, as was 'Wall Street.' And then there were 'Natural Born Smellers' and 'The Boors.' Now comes 'Alexander', a film that hadn't premiered before factions picked sides about the portrayal of the lead character's sexuality. Additionally, an early summer medieval spectacular (What was that film's name: Coy, Foy, Poi?) crashed and burned shortly after takeoff. Even with those challenges, I felt that Stone's film deserved a look. To me, 'Alexander' is a surprisingly good film albeit with jarring portrayal flaws. Anthony Hopkins gets the unenviable duty to narrate: his scenes play long and his elocution is so arch it's more Richard Burton than Hannibal Lector. Val Kilmer reminds us that he can overact any part to death. Angelina Jolie is 'Mother from hell,' an unsympathetic role she handles with aplomb. Inevitably, the film rests on Colin Farrell's shoulders and Farrell delivers an unexpectedly human conqueror, a believable, sympathetic man; he is a man more at ease gathering nations under his wing than ensuring that he produce an heir for his kingdom. He accepts innumerable pleasures from exotic people without veering into loutish hedonism. The film never loses sight of this conqueror's most telling trait: he saved his trust and love for the one person he had known and loved since childhood. Alas, this film will vanish to make room studio-conceived blockbusters, perhaps 'Friday the Thirteenth, part 207' or, 'Surviving Easter.'
